vaisnava wrote:Seems awesome. All I can suggest is for you to look into FabFilter's new DeEsser plugin and steal some ideas.

I haven't tried the fabfilter device, but most conventional compression based de-essers fail to de-ess fresh/raw/erratic recordings due to their inherent level dependent behaviour. That is, they only work fine with pre-processed, well balanced input. IMHO sibilance issues should be fixed at the source, not after several processing stages.

Without going too much into details, the sibilance controller is not a naive multi-band compressor or "EQ in the sidechain" based de-esser. It is truly relative in it's operation (i.e. not level dependent) and is designed to work well with untreated material.

Are you looking for a specific feature?

I still need to improve 2-3 things before releasing the first beta version.

Last edited by FabienTDR on Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This looks very nice indeed! I have to say i've been trying out your Compressor and ....well ..put it this way (imho) i would of purchased this by now if it wasn't free!
This is so nice and easy to use, i love it.Great work sir. Sorry for the hijacking, i tried to console myself but...

All the audience cares about is being fed a stream of songs that they know and can sing along to.
.......................
myfeebleeffort

Endor-8o8 wrote:By judging the quality of your compressor, I think this plug is gonna be a killer one ! Keep up the good work !

These are my thoughts exactly. I just happen to need a good de-esser too, so the timing for this couldn't be better for me. I was just about to start saving my money on fabfilter's de-esser but I think I will wait for this one to come out first. I also suggest you checking that fabfilter de-esser

So it's more aimed at tracking/mixing than mastering? I usually use the old freeware SpitFish when mastering (sometimes in an M/S matrix), to get rid of nasty vocal sibilance or splashy hats and cymabls, but it would be nice to have more options! Couldn't you adapt it to work well on full mixes, and with an M/S mode as well?

darkflame23 wrote:So it's more aimed at tracking/mixing than mastering? I usually use the old freeware SpitFish when mastering (sometimes in an M/S matrix), to get rid of nasty vocal sibilance or splashy hats and cymabls, but it would be nice to have more options! Couldn't you adapt it to work well on full mixes, and with an M/S mode as well?

The current state of the prototype only processes the LR sum, the LR difference is passed untouched.

btw, the term "Mid/Side" is plain wrong for stereo processing. Even if some companies based their whole marketing on fooling people with their strange misunderstanding of what Mid/Side really is, the term is still incredibly confusing for the user and totally wrong from the technical point of view.

Let me explain it, the Sum and Difference (this is the proper term!) of a regular stereo source does neither describe the "Mid" nor the "Side". Just an example:

Say, the input signal contains a snare fully panned left and a centered bass kick. Now, the "Mid/Side" marketing infected user would assume to find find his snare in the "Side" and bass-kick in the Center" channel, but it doesn't! Both will land in the "Mid", so the terms "Mid/Side" are wrong. It's more useful to use the terms "Sum and Difference", because they accurately describe what happens technically - even if it sounds much less exciting now.

The actual source of this confusion is that Mid/Side is a stereo microphone recording technique, and in this case, "Mid" truly describes the center of the recorded image and "Side" also truly represents all side event.

But these expectations are wrong for the stereo processing technique called Sum & Difference. In this case, the "Sum" contain both side and center events (!) and the "Difference" only contains the "anti-phase" elements between both channels (i.e. the stuff that would cancel out if summed). These important details basically fvck up the whole "Mid/Side" metaphor for the user.

Unbelievable, whole companies are based on this straight lie.

Ok, pls excuse this small excursion

Back to your question: The plug-in is definitely not designed to process specific elements of full mixes, in fact, the algorithm expects a monophonic signal to work best. However, it can still precisely control the amount of sibilance of a complex signal. But it will equally "attack" other signal-parts that look similar to vocal sibilance. High frequency drums most notably or sustained cymbals. But from my experiments, competitors have similar "polyphonc input" problems too (Fabfilter, Eliosis, ect).